Seeking Alpha

U.S. grounds the F-35

  • The U.S. military has grounded its entire fleet of Lockheed Martin (LMT) F-35 fighter jets, until additional inspections are conducted on the warplane's engine manufactured by Pratt & Whitney (UTX).
  • It was reported yesterday that U.S. and British authorities were looking into requiring mandatory inspections on the F-35, after an engine caught fire in Florida last week.
Comments (60)
  • Geeoff
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    The F35 might be the single worst procurement in U.S. military history. Honestly, they need something better.
    4 Jul, 07:52 AM Reply Like
  • Ethics-
    , contributor
    Comments (67) | Send Message
     
    These are small adjustments in comparison to the total investment...
    4 Jul, 08:01 AM Reply Like
  • chabig
    , contributor
    Comments (556) | Send Message
     
    You could say the same thing about most military procurement programs--until the system bugs get worked out and it's successfully fielded. Then they work great. You have to expect problems and hiccups during development.
    4 Jul, 08:21 AM Reply Like
  • Geeoff
    , contributor
    Comments (32) | Send Message
     
    The problem is that it has been like this for ten years and hundreds of billions of dollars already. A few hiccups - sure. But this has gone way past a few hiccups.
    4 Jul, 04:49 PM Reply Like
  • Moon Kil Woong
    , contributor
    Comments (11135) | Send Message
     
    That's what you get when you have government spending programs without capitalist costs involved. If it was normal people and not soldiers the product would be a lot safer. If you had late penalties and responsibility for failed parts you would not have these types of failures.

     

    This goes without looking into favoritism, special deal making, uncompetitive bids, rampant under quoting on times and over quoting on prices, and simple lies about what something can or can't do without evidence. The defense department's terrible procurement makes such a fiscal hole in America's pocketbook that you don't need an enemy. Their poor spending will bankrupt our government without a major incident and I agree that it is getting worse.

     

    The best solution is to make all the armed forces compete with the marines. If the Marines can acquire the same or equivalent thing for less or if its superior for the same price then the purchasing goes to the marines and gets deducted from the other military service. We need competition and market forces in military procurement to keep us from getting ripped off.

     

    We also need to think about the way our military is structured. Most operations these days require air, sea, and land and it's utterly ridiculous to the point of each force wanting to train and get their hands on others assets to accomplish a mission. That is what makes the marines so good. Some of them can actually budget based on mission specifics so they can plan a whole mission rather than take an eternity trying to get the support from the other forces to get a mission combat able.

     

    I suggest breaking them up to domestic security, large scaled war operations, specific operations or joint resources (like missiles, satellite communications, etc.) and special small mission forces (like the marines). Our current structure is more bent on arguing about who gets the most money than what we need and what missions and goals are. As the world changes we may fall behind if we keep separating functions out the way we currently do.
    5 Jul, 09:29 PM Reply Like
  • JamesBailey
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    An interesting idea that it's a simple matter of small adjustments in the overall development of new weapons systems. The F-22 has the singular distinction of never killing anyone on purpose, and the safest place for the F-35 is on the ground.
    6 Jul, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • John Georgiou
    , contributor
    Comments (234) | Send Message
     
    f-35 has many futuristic goodies so has many problems to solve.

     

    its not a failure ..... just a big step forward that costs very much TIME & USD

     

    Is it worth it? ..... hard to answer .... we (simple) people can't really know!
    4 Jul, 08:03 AM Reply Like
  • Dantes_Will
    , contributor
    Comments (341) | Send Message
     
    It's getting harder to justify the F-35 over the cost of drones and other pilotless vehicles.

     

    Besides, the future of national defense is cybersecurity. Traditional weapons are useless when the Chinese or Russians can infiltrate and shut down our utility, energy, and financial infrastructures.
    4 Jul, 11:05 AM Reply Like
  • Rinascimento
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    Did you ever hear about single point failure design? it will be very expensive to develop survivable multiple point failure design systems, if any system can survive
    5 Jul, 12:12 AM Reply Like
  • joey999
    , contributor
    Comments (227) | Send Message
     
    Indeed, In the next war involving top class opponents, aircraft carriers will likely survive about 6 hours.
    5 Jul, 08:24 AM Reply Like
  • sarichter
    , contributor
    Comments (306) | Send Message
     
    It's simply a waste of money. They need to stop spending so much on the military complex!
    4 Jul, 09:03 AM Reply Like
  • TAS
    , contributor
    Comments (2201) | Send Message
     
    It's a waste -- until you thank God you have it.
    5 Jul, 09:25 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel5150
    , contributor
    Comments (140) | Send Message
     
    Sadly.That would seem to be the problem.
    Too many people do not take the time each and every day to thank God for what they have.This country did not get where it is today by having a weak military.
    5 Jul, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • genomegk
    , contributor
    Comments (514) | Send Message
     
    Actually, Daniel5150, history proves the US can maintain a fairly modest military and mobilize when the need arises. Conversely History is also littered with the remnants of countries unable to maintain the cost of empire.
    5 Jul, 10:12 AM Reply Like
  • papayamon
    , contributor
    Comments (1185) | Send Message
     
    By far the biggest waste is on entitlements. Military spending is a drop in the bucket compared to the enormous waste in our social services programs - many of which are gamed by the very people they are supposed to help. And this because the government is stupid enough to hand people money for nothing.. which (surprise!) keeps them coming back.

     

    The very crux of social programs is that they never hold people responsible for anything. So the COPD patient who smokes 2 packs a day gets hospitalized 3 times in 3 months - at a cost to taxpayers of over 30K. Cost to the patient? Nothing! In fact, we give the patient the money to smoke, so we are paying for the entire game. We pay for their living, their pills, their booze, drugs and cigarettes. Then we pay for their health care. Examples of this abound, because they are not the exception - they are the rule.

     

    Until they reform the system for benefit limits and enforce some level of responsibility, we will slowly watch America sink as it is held hostage. Not by the enemy from without, but by the enemy from within.

     

    It is disgusting for me to see a person who works and actually pays their own bills that must skip healthcare because the cost is outrageous. And then some druggie on disability can have unlimited health care and even free ambulance rides to and from the hospital. They don't pay anything whatsoever. So if they want to try to get a little dilaudid for a good time, they call 911. The taxpayers even suck up the cost to send them home by transport. And you better bet that they have asked for a pair of "those free hospital socks".

     

    Or heck, let's just print more money and use that to pay for this. That way it's free!
    5 Jul, 01:13 PM Reply Like
  • rtnman
    , contributor
    Comments (2) | Send Message
     
    Tell that to the airmen who flew the F-117 during Desert Storm, the Iraqis never knew what hit them.
    6 Jul, 10:25 PM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3843) | Send Message
     
    rtnman

     

    Ya but stealth technology has already been defeated. During the Yugoslavia conflict, they downed a stealth fighter with a SAM.
    7 Jul, 11:21 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (3440) | Send Message
     
    One swallow does not a summer make - if a fighter can spot an enemy at 10 times the range the enemy can spot him, the fact that the enemy can eventually spot him won't do that enemy any good. He won't live to act on it... Stealth is a very important military technology and still highly relevant - that is not the issue with the F-35.
    8 Jul, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • furledd
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    There's waste everywhere in government. How about cut 10% across the board on every budget and everything. No exceptions. Congress doesnt have the balls to do it. They are already at a 8% approval rating or something. What do they have to lose? I am sure there would be cries of Armegeddon but i think everyone would live.
    4 Jul, 09:46 AM Reply Like
  • aeroguy48
    , contributor
    Comments (656) | Send Message
     
    How about cut the EPA by 90%, Eliminate the Dept. of Education, DOE by 80%, zero for the EEOC, Gut welfare payments, etc. lots of fat and waste to cut.
    4 Jul, 10:28 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3843) | Send Message
     
    10%across the board does nothing but hurt the underfunded agencies like CBP and ICE who only get less than 9B a year. Yet the same people who want drastic cuts expects the government to secure the border while throwing peanuts at them. Its hard to maintain agents in border towns where there is no local community, no hospitals and no infrastructure. This is why national guard troops are vital to securing the border. People who have never been to Arivaca, AZ or Douglas or Wilcox can never understand.

     

    F35 is the Osprey, they will complete it budget be damned.
    4 Jul, 10:33 AM Reply Like
  • Lakeaffect
    , contributor
    Comments (1030) | Send Message
     
    Davis, you're wrong about securing the border. They wouldn't do it if we devoted the entire national budget for that purpose. Everything the gov't does is politics.
    4 Jul, 10:58 AM Reply Like
  • Colinsimple investor
    , contributor
    Comments (17) | Send Message
     
    aeroguy: Sure, let's cut Dof Energy by 80% (why guard our nuclear arsenal and the infrastructure that supports it, anyway?) Gut welfare payments: are you talking about Social Security or Medicare -- which I've been working 40+ years to earn by paying into the trust fund. Perhaps you mean the various Dept of Agriculture programs? Maybe you mean the "3 hots and a cot" program aka the Federal Bureau of Prisons; after all many of them don't do any work. As for the Dpt of Education: so many of its programs and expenditures are against the spirit of integrating universities and promoting diversity (which are allegedly goals of this Administration and its predecessors) that abolishing it might be a good idea. After all, we know how good school systems are in so much of the nation! So what if local control of education causes us to lower our educational outcomes below that of central Africa. After all, how much education does it take to bag groceries, pour coffee, or grow marijuana?
    4 Jul, 11:08 AM Reply Like
  • wizjinx
    , contributor
    Comments (402) | Send Message
     
    So screw the environment, our children's educational futures, energy independence and clean energy, oversight of equality in the workplace (because we're post-racial right?), and the neediest of Americans so businesses can do whatever they want to do and we can give even more money to the military-industrial complex? I remember a time where being conservative didn't mean that at all, but sadly, it's been a long long time.
    4 Jul, 01:19 PM Reply Like
  • King Rat
    , contributor
    Comments (713) | Send Message
     
    Colinsimple investor, hold on there about SS. Nobody is calling that welfare (I hope). For the first beneficiaries, yes, it could be considered welfare. For just about everybody else, payments came out to "more than they put in" but "less than they would have made had they put that same money in the stock market".

     

    Your other points are interesting to ponder.
    4 Jul, 06:36 PM Reply Like
  • rasanders22
    , contributor
    Comments (541) | Send Message
     
    Once the government starts means testing SS, it will be welfare since we are required to put into it and getting less out.
    4 Jul, 09:08 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (3440) | Send Message
     
    They didn't put the money in the stock market. Other than the people at the top bracket of the SS breakpoints, everyone these days is taking way more out of it than they put in. And that is only going to get more true over time, and the number of receivers rises and the number of contributors does not.
    5 Jul, 12:04 AM Reply Like
  • genomegk
    , contributor
    Comments (514) | Send Message
     
    Across the board cuts simply show we are too stupid to set priorities. How about cutting 100% of duplication and waste, 100% of programs the government can't do well or don't deliver as intended, increases for programs with high returns on investment and 10% cuts for everything else.
    5 Jul, 10:16 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3843) | Send Message
     
    Lakeaffect,

     

    Spoken like another person who has never been there first hand...
    5 Jul, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel5150
    , contributor
    Comments (140) | Send Message
     
    Military spending is never a waste of money. If you want to remain and still be considered a powerful and respected nation.Well so much for that.Military spending is being slashed anyway. We are no longer feared and respected.Check back in a few years.The status will be even worse.
    4 Jul, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • Just Some Guy
    , contributor
    Comments (504) | Send Message
     
    Never say never - I agree that a lot of military spending is necessary, but that does not prevent waste and corruption, in fact it almost always includes it and on a large scale. The F-35 is turning out to be painfully expensive, there is just no denying that. Militarily it is dubious, stealthier evolutionary versions of F-15, F-16, and F-18 (and yes even the A-10!) would have been a lot cheaper, so much cheaper we could easily build enough extra to equal the F-35 in overall effectiveness. We just have to hope that some lessons are learned so the F-36 or whatever goes a whole lot faster and cheaper.
    4 Jul, 01:06 PM Reply Like
  • sarichter
    , contributor
    Comments (306) | Send Message
     
    Military spending is a waste when it's more than we spend on all of those 'little' things like education, healthcare, infrastructure, etc...
    4 Jul, 04:38 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel5150
    , contributor
    Comments (140) | Send Message
     
    Check back in 5-10 years and see if you still feel the same way
    Be careful what you wish for because it is already happening.You think the Chinese and Russian's are saddened by our slow but steady decline in military superiority?
    4 Jul, 05:43 PM Reply Like
  • genomegk
    , contributor
    Comments (514) | Send Message
     
    They are more happy about the massive borrowing to outspend the rest of the world combined on defense. The crushing debts from such borrowing have left our country weaker rather than stronger. If we continue our adversaries will some day win in the marketplace what they could never win on the battlefield.
    4 Jul, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • Rinascimento
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    Military spending is not being slashed; just look at how many contractors are employed; the Fed claims there is no inflation but wait to see how many fighters are flying when oil reaches $110 or $125 a barrel? this is all self-inflicted
    5 Jul, 12:30 AM Reply Like
  • Rinascimento
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    Surely China and Russia will be happy to see the US go broke by overspending on defense like the Soviet Union; like they say what goes around, comes around...life is not fair!!
    5 Jul, 01:11 AM Reply Like
  • TAS
    , contributor
    Comments (2201) | Send Message
     
    I'll offer that if we had mandatory military service in this country, it would go a long way toward solving many of the problems that plague our present society.
    5 Jul, 09:28 AM Reply Like
  • The Whidbey
    , contributor
    Comments (7) | Send Message
     
    New technology is never appreciated until it is needed... and performs. The F 35 is feared simply because others have seen it flying and wonder just what its total capability is in air combat and close air support and interdiction of ground ops.
    4 Jul, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • Matthew Davis
    , contributor
    Comments (3843) | Send Message
     
    F16 has already beaten it in most computer simulations.
    4 Jul, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • genomegk
    , contributor
    Comments (514) | Send Message
     
    At 200 million a plane the question is, can our enemies think of ways to shoot it down for considerably less than 200 million a plane? I think we all know the answer.
    4 Jul, 08:08 PM Reply Like
  • williamcarswell
    , contributor
    Comments (87) | Send Message
     
    The question is why not have stuck with the F-22? Clearly a superior aircraft and not at all true that it will ultimately have proven to be more expensive than the F-35, when all of the F-35's overruns are accounted for.
    4 Jul, 10:55 AM Reply Like
  • Just Some Guy
    , contributor
    Comments (504) | Send Message
     
    Well, the F-22 is still being debugged itself even years after cancellation, so it looked like maybe the F-35 could fill in for it anyway, the F-35 is largely the same airplane with different optimization criteria. And nobody anticipated the F-35 would be *this* expensive.

     

    But mostly the real high-performance niche is now being reserved for UCAVs, and who knows what we have already flying or on the boards for that.

     

    Especially as the F-35 runs late and expensive it's clear we should have at least built another couple of dozen F-22s before shutting it down, but again we don't know what's behind the black curtain.
    4 Jul, 01:11 PM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (3440) | Send Message
     
    "the F-35 is largely the same airplane with different optimization criteria"

     

    Um, no. Also, the F-35 doesn't have optimization criteria. It is supposed to do so many things that it is actually 3 aircraft and 100 compromises.
    4 Jul, 04:37 PM Reply Like
  • spald_fr
    , contributor
    Comments (2728) | Send Message
     
    Bring back the A10 Warthog.
    5 Jul, 12:41 PM Reply Like
  • WARRENWATT
    , contributor
    Comments (21) | Send Message
     
    What purpose does it serve ?
    4 Jul, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • Scootrd
    , contributor
    Comments (142) | Send Message
     
    It's purpose is to be a JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) fulfilling multi role - multi - purpose across all branches of our Services and RAF using a common airframe to support multiple tasks. air-to-air combat, air-to-surface attack, Recon, air support, etc..
    4 Jul, 03:10 PM Reply Like
  • MisterJ
    , contributor
    Comments (683) | Send Message
     
    We need more guns & butter & infrastructure.
    4 Jul, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • williamcarswell
    , contributor
    Comments (87) | Send Message
     
    Again, the F-22 is a FAR better aircraft, and if the rationale for halting production of the F-22 in favor of the F-35 was cost, I think that reasoning will be proven faulty.
    4 Jul, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • Financial Insights
    , contributor
    Comments (953) | Send Message
     
    I think it is moronic that the taxpayers have to continue to fund Lockheed Martin's incompetence. Time for Lockheed Martin to eat some of the excess costs that have developed as a direct result of their horrible management of the development of this aircraft.
    4 Jul, 07:07 PM Reply Like
  • Daniel5150
    , contributor
    Comments (140) | Send Message
     
    The F 22 is indeed a far better aircraft,it's only disadvantage is that it can't be used from a carrier like the F 35..Lockheed Martin..Get this mess fixed ASAP..
    4 Jul, 07:57 PM Reply Like
  • jake319
    , contributor
    Comments (87) | Send Message
     
    The F-35 wll cost $25000/ flight hour to operate. This F-35 is not a close support aircraft. It becomes unstable at slow speeds. Right now it can't care a full combat load. It can't hover with full fuel tanks. This aircraft will never live up
    lockheeds hype. Then again they have been paid $1 trillion just for development and have made 30 aircraft. They received full payment during the sequester.
    4 Jul, 11:20 PM Reply Like
  • Rinascimento
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    I saw the cost of over $50,000 per flight hour for the F-35 in Motley Fool; the lowest was the A-10, next up the F-16 and next up the F-22 but lower than the F-35; $25,000 is too low
    5 Jul, 01:03 AM Reply Like
  • Doug Meeks
    , contributor
    Comments (1355) | Send Message
     
    Technology will leave the F-35 behind, things change to fast to take this long on any project.
    5 Jul, 12:39 AM Reply Like
  • Felix Lumpe
    , contributor
    Comments (169) | Send Message
     
    Although they utilize some similar technologies, the F-22 and the F-35 are in no way interchangeable from a combat mission perspective. The F-22 is focused almost exclusively on air defense and air interdiction. It was designed as an interceptor type aircraft with a very low bypass ratio engine for super cruise capability in non-after burning mode and has the ability to vector thrust for added agility. The F-35 on the other hand was designed to be compatible with the mission needs of the USAF, USN, and USMC. Three different airframes evolved. In the past, this approach never really worked dating all of the way back to the F-4 and the F-111. The F-22 could never fill any of the three missions required by the USAF, USN, OR USMC. It lacks mission range and does not carry enough weaponry in stealth mode. What sets the F-35 apart is its software and associated sensor and Coms capability. In retrospect, it would probably have been more cistern effective to just keep upgrading legacy aircraft like the A-10, F-15, F-16, and F-18 rather than dumping tens of billions of dollars into something as costly and sophisticated as the F-35. I mean how much technology does it take to dump cluster bombs on the Taliban or patrol the Horn of Africa against Somali pirates?
    5 Jul, 08:31 AM Reply Like
  • Daniel5150
    , contributor
    Comments (140) | Send Message
     
    The Taliban and Somali pirates are your biggest concern and threat?
    For God's sake man.
    5 Jul, 08:43 AM Reply Like
  • JasonC
    , contributor
    Comments (3440) | Send Message
     
    "was designed to be compatible with the mission needs of the USAF, USN, and USMC. Three different airframes evolved. In the past, this approach never really worked"

     

    It is way more perverse than that. The dreamers asked for one aircraft that could fill all mission roles, and engineers knew that you only get that by making a piece of mediocre crap, because you actually have to tailor the aircraft design to the specific mission and constraints to do any one of them well. The dreamers insisted and created the F-35, then "compromised" by still supporting all 3 services getting "their" version of it, instead of picking one and forcing the other services to make due with it. So they ended up with 3 different airframes anyway, since short runway for carriers, vertical take off for Marines expecting to operate them ashore without any facilities to speak of early in deployments, and the normal needs of long range and payload and not being a dog and a target in air to air combat that the air force cared about, are not actually compatible.

     

    They should have just built 3, or better yet told the Marines tough toenails and retired the VTOL idea entirely and then made two, one for the air force and one for the navy. Or they could have continued building the F-22 for the airforce, and made the F-35 a navy optimized design. The airforce could take them if it wanted most strike payload or they were cheaper, or just keep buying F-22s if they preferred that. Both services would have had a plane optimized for their actual missions and the nation would have had flexibility in force composition and emphasis.

     

    But that would have pitted the two services against each other for funding instead of having them allied to fund "the F-35" as a line item, so they ignored the engineers. The one all important consideration was that all the brass must sing its praises at budgeting time, without a dissenting voice, even if it meant building a rube goldberg pile of crap.

     

    The primary reason to have it in the first place was supposed to be "joint strike fighter", and it isn't joint when there are 3 airframes. Meanwhile on the "strike fighter" component, it carries a large bomb load only using external stores which make it unstealthy. When it has to operate in a stealthy manner and is thus limited to its actual internal bomb bays, its strike payload is not appreciably larger than the F-22.

     

    Improvements in small diameter bombs that let either one carry more munitions internally would have made a bigger difference in their effective strike capability than lots of external hardpoints on 3 different airframes. If we need mere payload and don't care about stealth for a given mission, we have thousands of legacy aircraft that can do that. The services don't want to think that way because they fear that 25 years down the road these things will be all they have - but that, again, is the crazy priority of budgeting everything into one basket ignoring engineering flexibility talking, and has nothing to do with tech or design or missions or anything militarily real.

     

    If we had rational military planning, we would reopen the F-22 lines now, cancel the Marine version of the F-35 completely, and produce the navy and air force F-35s alongside the F-22. (We spent enough in developing those that we don't need to throw away the airforce one). Then the air force generals can decide how many of each of the better air superiority F-22 vs the strike F-35s they actually need, and the navy can order F-35s. The Marines do not need their own air force beyond helicopters and can rely on navy for air support as they have in practice for most of their history, anyway.

     

    Meanwhile we should focus future development efforts in the area on better small diameter munitions to up the effective payload while operating stealthy, and on maintaining our lead in the signals side of things (stealth tech, radar tech, jamming tech, etc) to keep both aircraft ahead of the Russian and Chinese competition in air to air terms.

     

    But we don't have rational military planning in any of it. We are paying 3-4 times as much as we need to pay, to a monopoly supplier - to get less capability - as a direct result of that political budgeting stupidity, nothing else.
    5 Jul, 01:54 PM Reply Like
  • chabig
    , contributor
    Comments (556) | Send Message
     
    So you're saying the F-35 is the Surface Pro 3 of the military world.
    6 Jul, 08:17 AM Reply Like
  • Rinascimento
    , contributor
    Comments (1049) | Send Message
     
    This is disappointing!! I rarely see President Eisenhower warning on MIC mentioned on a forum like this
    6 Jul, 07:50 PM Reply Like
  • Felix Lumpe
    , contributor
    Comments (169) | Send Message
     
    More on design enhancements of legacy aircraft. Advanced versions of both the F-15 and F-16 have already been designed, built, and delivered to International customers. The F-15s built for Singapore and being built now for Saudi Arabia are far more capable than those flown by the USAF. The version envisioned for Korea was even more advanced. Similarly, the F-16 Block 60 delivered 10 years or so ago to the United Arab Emirates has far more capability than anything operated by US force. Much of the cost for this development was covered by the UAE. Same could be said about the Israeli F-16I. Bottom line here is that these aircraft could probably have provided at least 80% of the required incremental mission capability in a much more cost effective manner than the F-35. Sadly, like the F-22, the F-35 may be technologically obsolete by the time it is fully operational on a large scale. Billions more will be required to maintain its technical superiority in the face of advancements made by Russia and China (largely by stealing our design know-how. The situation is really frustrating as hell. It would have been better to target the 80% solution with 20% of the total investment. Anybody other than a few defense contractors and their lobbyists disagree? I'll get off my soap box now.
    5 Jul, 08:58 AM Reply Like
  • asab
    , contributor
    Comments (4) | Send Message
     
    Bad mistake to shut out GE to duel source this engine. When you shut out the competition (politics) this is what you get.
    10 Jul, 07:16 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector